User talk:Ervin111899

Welcome!

Hello, Ervin111899, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ervin111899, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to National Grid Corporation of the Philippines have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ervin111899

Hello Ervin111899,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pulilan Regional Road for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Stephreef (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ervin11899. I noticed your edits related to the Office of the President [of the Philippines]. Please note that the "Office of the President" may refer to the President of the Philippines himself in normal, everyday or casual conversation, it is in fact a legally defined entity separate from the President himself. See relevant article: Office of the President of the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ervin111899. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Davao, Abra, Laguna, Kalinga and Isabela

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ervin111899,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ervin111899

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The powerpuff Girls, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a controversial move that you did without any discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be using multiple accounts (this one and User:Ervin118) for no obvious reason. The general rule is one editor, one account. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for more information. Trivialist (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ervin111899, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Nanophosis (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will not make and use multiple accounts again in Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You have known about our sockpuppet policy for more than a year. As such, your violations were clearly deliberate and you will need to address this before we can safely unblock you. Yamla (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How do I address this violation/s that I made?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervin111899 (talk • contribs)

Only your unblock request should be formatted as an unblock request; standard questions or comments should just be posted in plain text. You address the violation by explaining why you chose to create multiple accounts when you had been made aware that doing so was wrong. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry for making multiple accounts. The purpose for this is because in case I forgot a password, I will make another one on a another computer. Despite this, I promise that I will not do this anymore because it violates the rules of Wikipedia. Also, I will think first before I act.

Decline reason:

Per the below conditions, you didn't mention Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs), Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs) and Ervin111118 (talk · contribs). Therefore unblock request declined. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I initially declined this unblock request, see here for it, with the reason "Given that you were using two of the sock accounts in parallel over a period of many months, that seems unlikely." In light of the exchange below, I have reverted that decline, and I leave it for someone else to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is unlikely if I were using two of the sock accounts in parallel over a period of months? How do I solve this problem? Ervin111899

How can you have been using both accounts in parallel for so long if you had forgotten the password of one of them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By not logging out both accounts on both computers. Ervin111899

Ah, what I've just discovered is that you can stay logged in for up to 365 days - I really hadn't realised it was that long. And, other than this (current) account, your other two were both active for periods shorter than that. So what you say does indeed appear to fit the evidence. I will shortly revert my decline of your unblock request and leave it for someone else to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With all three accounts, you failed to communicate or ever respond to anything until you were blocked. That is an additional reason for blocking along with the sockpuppeting. Please explain. The different accounts combined with not communicating made this much harder for other editors than it had to be.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for not responding. I promise that I will respond to any notification that come to Wikipedia as well as to communicate with other users. But the reason is continuing to make some information of an article correct and accurate. Ervin111899

Here's my deal. You disclose all accounts you have been using, which we will then block indefinitely, and promise to use this account only from here on. The offer is conditional on you disclosing everything; if we find additional socks you haven't told us about, the deal is off (and we can ask a checkuser to find them, so you need to be upfront and honest). Then I will unblock, on the strict condition that any further sockpuppetry will be met with an immediate reblock. (Pinging blocking admin Berean Hunter for comment). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me....add no anon editing to prevent IP socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to only use this account and not doing sockpuppetry anymore. Ervin111899

I'm happy that this was inadvertent use of multiple accounts, and I support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy with this Berean Hunter? If so, may as well go ahead and unblock. I would, but am leery of undoing any CU actions period (at least without their express written consent if they are unable to do it themselves). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, I'm happy to unblock as soon as Ervin lists all the accounts he has been using. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts that I had used before the block are:

• Ervin111899
• Ervin118
• Ervin1118

Ervin111899 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Accounts used before the block are: Ervin111899, Ervin118, Ervin1118, Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs), Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs), and Ervin111118 (talk · contribs).

Decline reason:

As below. SQL^{Query me!} 02:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ritchie333: - heads up, it looks like the editor provided the information you requested. SQL^{Query me!} 16:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...only after he left those accounts out and it got his previous request denied because of it. A little late now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Ervin111899 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the directions above. Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Because when I am listing similar accounts, the request was declined. Ervin111899 (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to list all the accounts you have used in one posting and explain why you created additional accounts when you were aware of policy not to. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts used before the block are: Ervin111899, Ervin118, Ervin1118, Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs), Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs), and Ervin111118 (talk · contribs). I created additional accounts when I was aware of policy not to because in case of forgetting a password when I logged out, I will create another one.Ervin111899 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make another unblock request. The best thing to do is not forget your password in the first place, not make additional accounts. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do I list the accounts before the block again on an unblock request and the reason why I created additional accounts when I was aware of policy not to? Ervin111899 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your above list is complete, you can simply refer to it in your request, which is also where you should give your explanation, also stating what it is that you want to do if unblocked. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Accounts used before the block are: Ervin111899, Ervin118, Ervin1118, Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs), Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs), and Ervin111118 (talk · contribs). I created additional accounts when I was aware of policy not to because in case of forgetting a password when I logged out, I will create another one. I promised that if I am unblocked, I will not create additional accounts anymore and stick only into one account. The best thing that I can do is to remember my password. If I do not remember my password, I will use the forgot password feature at login to request a temporary password. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the apparent deliberate concealment of a block-evading account, I suggest that the standard offer is probably now your only route back to editing. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I feel the need to add that if one does not remember one's password, one uses the forgot password feature at login to request a temporary password. (It's what I do.) (struck)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Ervin111899 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. You haven't recently created another account that hasn't been mentioned here?
2. It looks like you have been editing while logged out.
3. Also, after my initial block for sockpuppetry on June 26, you used another puppet to seemingly threaten another user with "what you know about ..cartoon network ? If you revert again i will block u....fool ...scoundrel ...idiot"...my bolding. That blocking threat would pass for admin impersonation but...that isn't really another user is it? We can compare your account with your other account that you have failed to mention on this page before.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I stopped created another account. I edited pages while logged out but starting this time, I promise to edit only while logged in. The best thing is to not log out my account.Ervin111899 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed between your last unblock request, and now? SQL^{Query me!} 03:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounts that were used before the block. My latest unblock request is the list of accounts used before the block, reason why I am created additional accounts, promise to not create additional accounts anymore and stick only into one account, and know what will I do if I forgot my password which is to use the forgot password feature at login to request a temporary password. The best thing that I can do is to remember my password. Also, I promise that if I am unblocked, I will not use puppets to threaten other users.Ervin111899 (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you were told to list all of the accounts and you have continuously left off BROTHmnhb. You have been evading your block by anon editing. I don't have confidence that you have listed all of your accounts. I believe that six months of no anon editing or socking would be in order per the standard offer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for anon editing and evading the block. Starting this time, I will not repeat these things anymore. Ervin111899 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the standard offer being the only route back to editing? I want to edit now as long as I follow the policies and rules of Wikipedia and not repeat those mistakes again. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard Offer is detailed at Standard Offer. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do I meet those conditions first before I edit again?Ervin111899 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; refrain from editing and socking for six months,(starting from your last edit) pledge not to repeat the offensive behavior, and don't otherwise create a reason to object to your return to editing. It isn't a guaranteed pathway back, but it is your best chance. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do I only apologize to not repeat those mistakes again after six months?Ervin111899 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at WP:SO, an apology is not necessary(though perhaps helpful), only a pledge that your behavior will change and your refraining from edits/socking for six months. It's not the case that if you do those things you are guaranteed to be unblocked, but it's a big step forward as it shows that you can respect Wikipedia policies and practices. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I pledge to change my behavior?Ervin111899 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "I pledge to change my behavior and not do (whatever got me blocked) again" and saying what constructive things you will do if unblocked. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I waited for six months without editing or sockpuppetry since my last edit in January 27, 2019 and not created any extraordinary reasons to object to a return while waiting for at least 6 months. So I now pledge to change my behavior and not do sockpuppetry and block evasion again. Also I will now start communicate to other Wikipedia users.

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. MER-C 17:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Please list all accounts that you have ever created.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• List of all accounts that I have ever created:
  • Ervin111899
  • Ervin118
  • Ervin1118
  • Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111118 (talk · contribs)

Ervin111899 (talk)

Are you sure that these are the only accounts that you have ever created? This is important that you get this right because we need to know that we are getting truthful and complete answers from you. That is how trust is rebuilt. Now isn't the time to be either forgetful or evasive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are the list of accounts that I have ever created or used before the block. Previously, I have only listed the accounts Ervin111899, Ervin118, and Ervin1118 and forgot to mention Ervin1111118, Ervin111111118, and Ervin111118 so the unblock request was declined by Ritchie333. I created another unblock request, this time listed the accounts Ervin111899, Ervin118, Ervin1118, Ervin1111118, Ervin111111118, and Ervin111118. It again declined and created another unblock request, also listing those accounts but declined by Yunshui. The reason why Yunshui declined the request is because given the apparent deliberate concealment of a block-evading account, the user suggested that the standard offer is probably now my only route back to editing. Ervin111899 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about Ejrdr11181999?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of all accounts that I have ever created:

• • Ervin111899
  • Ervin118
  • Ervin1118
  • Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ejrdr11181999

Sorry for not including the account Ejrdr11181999. I will now include this account on my list of accounts that I had created.

Ervin111899 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about Abcdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz111899?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of all accounts that I have ever created:

• • Ervin111899
  • Ervin118
  • Ervin1118
  • Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ejrdr11181999
  • Abcdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz111899

Sorry also for not including the account Abcdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz111899. I will now include this account on my list of accounts that I had created. Ervin111899 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about BROTHmnhb? What were you trying to do with this account?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of all accounts that I have ever created:

• • Ervin111899
  • Ervin118
  • Ervin1118
  • Ervin1111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ervin111118 (talk · contribs)
  • Ejrdr11181999
  • Abcdefghiklmnopqrstuvwxyz111899
  • BROTHmnhb

Berean Hunter

Sorry also for not including the account BROTHmnhb. I will now include this account on my list of accounts that I had created. I had continuously left off BROTHmnhb so I had evaded my block by anon editing. I also used another puppet to seemingly threaten another user. I will not do sockpuppetry and block evasion again. Also I will not use another puppet to seemingly threaten another user again. Ervin111899 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the omissions of the accounts that you didn't mention, I don't have faith that we would get (or have gotten) the complete truth to your history with accounts or other situations that may come up. It shouldn't be that hard to get truthful answers from you and it undermines trust. I suggest that you spend the next six months working on a different Wikimedia project with only one account and when you request the standard offer next time, you should be more forthcoming about how you used the sock accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will spend the next six months working on a different Wikimedia project with only one account and when I request the standard offer next time, I should be more forthcoming about how I used the sock accounts. Also I will repeat waiting for six months without anon editing or sockpuppetry in English Wikipedia. Ervin111899 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Philippine five peso note on Powerpuff Girls reboot episode Presidential Punchout.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I waited for six months without editing or sockpuppetry since my last edit in August 8, 2019 and not created any extraordinary reasons to object to a return while waiting for at least 6 months. I edited other Wikimedia projects (i.e. Wikimedia Commons and Tagalog Wikipedia) using only one account during my wait for six months from August 2019 to February 2020. So I now pledge to change my behavior and not do sockpuppetry and block evasion again. Also I will now start communicate to other Wikipedia users.

Accept reason:

Accept per the standard offer and ROPE. Good luck in your editing endeavors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Berean Hunter: Is this a check user block or may any administrator review it? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited May Bukas Pa (2009 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're welcome. Sorry for adding a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna when I recently edited May Bukas Pa (2009 TV series). Ervin111899 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ervin111899

Thank you for creating List of May Bukas Pa episodes.

User:WikiAviator, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

No RS at all. IMDB is NOT RS. Article not tagged because it is quite new. Please improve swiftly.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

WikiAviator (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAviator: Hi. You're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ervin111899: I highly encourage you to cite your contributions, especially on transmission line articles, as these may be perceived as original research. I recently tagged some of your articles with the {{Original research}} tag as they seem to be filled with original research. Thanks. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North Luzon Expressway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valenzuela.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pulilan Regional Road is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulilan Regional Road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tai-pan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In the future, I will use the preview button before I save my edit; so that I will find any errors I have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Ervin111899 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how to provide edit summaries. Thanks. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! —Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Every time I edit, I will add a summary. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are using edit summaries incorrectly. though, I appreciate your response. the summary does not need to be long. for example, when you change something, just put in the summary "change" or "i changed something". just brief summarization. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just only short edit summary. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must not add or change content like what I did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. I will review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give descriptive edit summaries. "Edited an article" is not helpful at all. Trivialist (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must become specific in providing edit summaries. Ervin111899 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your last few summaries are much improved. Thanks! :) Also, I apologize for any confusion from my comment. I didn't see the previous commenter who said that just saying "i changed something" was sufficient. While they meant well, the edit summary should be meaningful. And as I said, your last few edit summaries are great, so just keep doing that. :) Trivialist (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my last few summaries are much improved. I will continue to provide edit summaries that are specific. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just repeat people's messages back to them? Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Trivialist that I just repeat people's messages back to them. I will now change my comment. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my wrong edit summary on this revision of List of E-Boy episodes where I thought that I removed the episode table of Ikaw ay Pag-Ibig so I mentioned "Removed episode table of Ikaw ay Pag-Ibig" in this revision but actually it is not. I already removed an episode table of Ikaw ay Pag-Ibig on the next revision of this page thus I mention in this revision as "Removed episode table of Ikaw ay Pag-Ibig." Ervin111899 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Mutya episodes, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I provided retroactive attribution in the edit summary of this diff for the content you moved from ABS-CBN Corporation. For future copying or moving of text between articles, just be sure to note it in the edit summary (with a wikilink to the original page). This is needed to satisfy attribution requirements as described at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DanCherek. Yes, I must provide retroactive attribution in the edit summary if I copy or move of text between articles and make sure to note it in the edit summary with a wikilink to the original page. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of May Bukas Pa guest stars, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already created the page List of May Bukas Pa guest stars and submitted the draft of Draft:List of May Bukas Pa guest stars. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Mutya episodes instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Mutya episodes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Numberguy6 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ervin111899! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Numberguy6 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my wrong edit summary on this revision of Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya because while I am adding edit summary for my edit of Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya page, I accidentally press the key that opens my submitted work or edit of a page on a new window. I reverted the page to previous revision. I edited and submitted the page again with the correct edit summary (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ikaw_ang_Liwanag_at_Ligaya&oldid=1105874311). Ervin111899 (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You're replying to yourself lol. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am just apologizing for my wrong edit summary. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What length of CSID of ABS-CBN/GMA/TV5 will get to add it to their Wikipedia article, music video or lyric video? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length of CSID of ABS-CBN/GMA/TV5 will get to add it to their Wikipedia article, music video or lyric video is determined by searching them at YouTube which will display a video of a CSID of ABS-CBN/GMA/TV5 with their length on a search result screen. Ervin111899 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on what video, original music video or lyric video? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any video, original music video, or lyric video of respective CSID of ABS-CBN (posted by ABS-CBN Entertainment YouTube channel)/GMA (posted by GMA Network YouTube channel)/TV5 (posted by TV5 Philippines YouTube channel) on YouTube. Ervin111899 (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Just Love Ngayong Christmas has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My edit to Just Love Ngayong Christmas has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If I am the copyright holder, I will read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading my material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. I may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—I must write using my own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of the copyright policy will be blocked from editing. So I must be careful with what I add to Wikipedia. Ervin111899 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope you are having a nice day.
I just want to raise few points regarding your repeated reformatting of Zaijian Jaranilla Career section.
1. The "2006-2008: Early Work" that you are always creating is not significant, so it does not need separate section unless we include projects that gave significant change to his career. This section cannot stand alone as i have mentioned on my previous revert. That is why i have included until 2014 since most of his early projects are within 2009-2014.
2. Jaranilla was a talent of RDB since 2004 as proven by verified sources, not 2006.
3. The section "Acting stint" looks like a joke. It looks like a fanpage rather than an encyclopedia page. Check good articles like Marian Rivera, Judy Ann Santos or Beyonce and you will notice how Career sections are being made.
4. Please raise your concerns on the talk page first, rather than reverting every time we are reformatting his article so other users ca suggest too.
Thank You. jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope I have a nice day. I am sorry for my edits in Zaijian Jaranilla page. I now know that the "2006-2008: Early Work" that I always creating is not significant so it does not need separate section unless including projects that gave significant change to his career. This section cannot stand alone as mentioned on the previous revert. That is why the section is included until 2014 since most of his early projects are within 2009-2014. I also now know that Jaranilla was a talent of RDB since 2004 as proven by verified sources. Also sorry for the section "Acting stint". I will now name the section that fits into an encyclopedia page. I will also now edit the page only if I have corrections to the page and add any information as long as it is correct or much better I must raise my concerns on the talk page first rather than reverting every time reformatting his article so other users can suggest too. So sorry for all my edits on Zaijian Jaranilla page. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Just Love Ngayong Christmas, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Love Ngayong Christmas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Budoy episodes, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If I feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, I will click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Budoy episodes instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Budoy episodes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Studio 23 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, it is undesirable to do "cut-and-paste move" because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, I will use the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. I will able to move an article myself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If I cannot perform moving a particular page, I will follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, I will list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you also and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ervin111899. I notice that when you edit you put an edit summary which is of almost no value to your fellow editors, as you simply say something like, "Edited xx section of Yyy page". We know what page you edited, as the history and the diff showing your edit both show the page name; what would be more valuable would be a description of what you did, something like, "Typofix" or "Added reference" or "Removed questionable information". Do you see the difference? In several sections further up this page you have been given advice about summaries, you appear to agree to follow it, and then don't. I suggest you read WP:EDITSUMMARY and take its recommendations to heart, and change your practice to make it easier for the rest of the community to edit with you. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lindsay. From what edit summaries that I had made on various pages, they are only the same each time I edit that page (i.e. Edited (Wikipedia page name)/(section of a Wikipedia page). Yes. I will change my practice to make it easier for the rest of the community to edit with me by providing summaries that what I am really done to a particular Wikipedia page and more specific, providing different summaries each time I edit a page, and following recommendations from the WP:EDITSUMMARY. Happy days too. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apalit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angeles.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the link to a specific page. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Cartoon Network, Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the link to a specific page. Ervin111899 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ervin111899. I am @Archer1234. I noticed some recent edits that have added the month and day to the previous posts listed for various Catholic prelates: [1] [2] [3].

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states [...] the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article [...] The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

The addition of months and days for the |previous_post= values struck me as being overly-precise; that is, precision where it is not needed. The key information is, of course, the position itself. Adding the duration and chronological ordering, if known, is helpful to readers, but I do not see any increased value, in the general case, of adding anything beyond just the years. In my view, the years alone satisfy this need. Precise dates are (or could be) stated in the body of the article (as I think they are in each of the articles linked above), so there would be no loss of information by not including them in the infobox.

What do you think? Thanks.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must change the dates to simply years for each Roman Catholic bishops or archbishops. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mexico–Hermosa Transmission Line, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Hermosa Transmission Line until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EDSA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed the link from Laguna to Laguna (province). Ervin111899 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution.

If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself by using the "move" button (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. SilverLocust 💬 05:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And I will request for a delete on a page with redirect to another page so that only the currently-named page is used or focused. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of requesting deletion, use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (if the move you want to perform is non-controversial) or open a requested move (if potentially controversial). SilverLocust 💬 05:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (if the move I want to perform is non-controversial) or open a requested move (if potentially controversial). Otherwise, I will only copy and paste from my final revision of List of May Bukas Pa episodes to the current List of May Bukas Pa episodes, chapters, and specials and all edits made in the latter will not be anymore moved to another page and only stay in the current page. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. I just had to clean-up after this cut-paste move. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not getting it. It is not intentional. Now I will post the change in name of an article to this page. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Primetime Bida has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Primetime Bida until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Plants vs Zombies Zombiquarium Game Over.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at We Built This City, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please review WP:IPCV as well. DonIago (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must not add or change content without citing a reliable source like I did on the page We Built This City and follow the guidelines stated at Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:IPCV. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to May Bukas Pa (2009 TV series) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will now edit the page but only based on facts (like the executive producer where it will only be listed based on what is shown on opening credits) and on its list of episodes only include the series proper or episodes. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Maalaala Mo Kaya season 20 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Plot descriptions must not be copied from other sources without the permission of the copyright holder or owner, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC) Wrong message, sorry — Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I must not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as me. I must also respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. I must be careful with editing to ensure that I am following Wikipedia editing policies. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about copying episode titles and descriptions of shows from other websites like IMDb or sites of respective TV networks? Because I saw like on list of episodes of ABS-CBN shows where they were either taken from iWantTFC or any of the sites related to the network including YouTube? Evidence is here: List of Batang Quiapo episodes where the descriptions where taken from iWantTFC. Ervin111899 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online, in books, in magazines, and in newspapers is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Administrator Dianna. If I am editing Wikipedia, much better I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc @ScarletViolet 180.252.59.146 (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc sir @ViperSnake151 and sir @PJ Santos..... 36.69.17.52 (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc sir @WayKurat, sir @Hotwiki and sir @FrederickEvans.... 36.76.5.219 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc sir @RandomMe98 2001:448A:1020:3E53:A5C7:95C1:9F9A:5962 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc sir @Jdcooper 2001:448A:1021:3855:A5C7:95C1:9F9A:5962 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cc @Robertogamerxxx 180.252.59.146 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will use "Show preview" before saving my edits so that to prevent clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balanga Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rizal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 112.210.233.47. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -112.210.233.47 (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will either use Sandbox or preview revision before saving to ensure that my edit or contribution is constructive. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Hotwiki. Your recent edit(s) to the page 24 Oras appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Copying text requires a conscious decision to highlight a block of text and then click "copy". Pasting text requires placing your cursor where you want that text to go, and clicking "paste". These actions cannot possibly be inadvertent, and repeated violations of copyright law are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ervin111899 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am sorry for what I had done. Now I already knew, understood, and learned that copy pasting from other websites and uploading images without permission are strictly prohibited and violation of a copyright law. I must now do what I had said back July 2024 where I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media. I must now do and accept what was discussed on a user talk page where I do not add or change content, as I did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source and must not repeat people's messages back to them. What others said is final and I must face or accept it. And I must not upload images without permission anymore. Ervin111899 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You already promised this back in July. You worked hard to demonstrate we cannot trust your promises. You had your final warning, you agreed to stop, you failed to stop. I see no path forward here. Yamla (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What can I do for my appeal to be accepted in order to solve this problem by being unblocked? Because I already now realize the mistakes and I will not repeat them again? Ervin111899 (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no path forward for you. You demonstrated you cannot be trusted and aren't willing to stop. You are free to contest your block and another admin will review it, but I think this is the end of the line. --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already realized my mistakes therefore I am now willing to stop due to that. Ervin111899 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You said that in July. You worked hard to demonstrate you haven't the slightest intention to stop. I won't respond further. --Yamla (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we've heard you say that you recognize your mistakes and will stop, but we've heard that before and you kept going. We cannot trust your word. If you show us, but editing another project for six months, (WP:SO) you would show us, rather than tell us, that you can be trusted. Once you've shown you can follow policies and contribute usefully somewhere else, then you can come back here and appeal. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The only solution for indefinite blocks is to edit on another project without problems for six months of not being able to edit on English Wikipedia (WP:SO) so that I show that I have realized all of my mistakes. Once I edit on another project without problems after six months, then I will return to English Wikipedia to appeal. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I disagree a bit with this. Part of their words in their appeal were copied from a prior discussion. [...] I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media. That they copied text for their appeal revolving around inappropriately copying text seems to show that they are not serious enough about this issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for copying from previous discussions. But still starting today I will edit on other projects for six months without problems and after that, I will return to English Wikipedia to appeal or address this issue in a proper way and not copying anything. Ervin111899 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is an inveterate copier of material, as demonstrated by Super Goku V above. Absurdly the user has even copied text from COPYVIO notices to say that they will abide by COPYVIO rules. There are also examples in the current ANI thread [4] where the user even had conversations where they simply parroted back the text that other users had addressed to them, changing 'you must' to 'I must', etc.

I'm not sure if this is because the user is incapable of using written English and thus uses whatever text they can derive from elsewhere as a kind of poor man's AI, or if they are basically a troll. However, the fact that in this case it is impossible to distinguish between a serious WP:CIR issue and trolling is not a good look. Axad12 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are times that I also write on my own before being blocked. I am sorry for what I have done. What I can now avoid is copying from everyone else. I will only write my own idea in Wikipedia which I will be included in the next block appeal after waiting for six months. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]